Dr. John R. Deni

JOHN R. DENI is a Research Professor of Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College’s (USAWC) Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). He is also an adjunct lecturer at the American University’s School of International Service. Previously, he worked for 8 years as a political advisor to senior U.S. military commanders in Europe. Prior to that, he spent 2 years as a strategic planner specializing in U.S. security cooperation and military-to-military relations. While working for the U.S. military in Europe, Dr. Deni was also an adjunct lecturer at Heidelberg University’s Institute for Political Science—there, he taught graduate and undergraduate courses on U.S. foreign and security policy, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), European security, and alliance theory and practice. With degrees from the College of William & Mary, American University, and George Washington University, Dr. Deni has spoken at conferences and symposia throughout Europe and North America. He is the author, editor, or co-editor of five books, including Alliance Management and Maintenance: Restructuring NATO for the 21st Century along with authoring several peer-reviewed monographs and journal articles.

SSI books and monographs by Dr. John R. Deni

August 25, 2017

The Department of Defense can achieve deterrence and assurance objectives more effectively and efficiently through a rebalancing of its force posture. The Army should reverse the trend of the last 2 decades and forward station additional heavy units in Europe and on the Korean Peninsula, while ending lengthy, heel-to-toe rotational noncombat deployments.

January 24, 2016

Forward military presence and, when employed selectively, military engagement – can promote stability and security and can contribute dramatically to operational capacity and capability across a range of military operations, including major interstate war. Unfortunately, significant cuts to overseas permanent presence and continuing pockets of institutional bias against engagement as a force multiplier and readiness enhancer have combined to limit the leverage possible through these two policy tools.

October 26, 2015

The Obama administration’s concerted efforts to rebalance American foreign policy away from defense and toward diplomacy and development unfortunately have failed. The continuing militarization of U.S. foreign policy means the Defense Department will remain the preferred means of both legislators and the executive branch for dealing with the greatest challenges facing American national security.

February 03, 2015

How are the profound, even revolutionary changes in today’s global energy markets affecting U.S. national security and the U.S. military? Experts from academia, think tanks, the Pentagon, and the private sector address these and related questions in this timely, important edited volume.

September 09, 2014

Managing change in the international security environment—whether revolutionary or evolutionary in nature—is never an uncomplicated task. The authors address the military implications of political and social change in the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America.

June 03, 2014

The U.S. Army's forward presence in the Pacific theater is long overdue for reconsideration and reconceptualization. Without unduly harming America's commitment to deterrence on the Korean peninsula, the Army forward presence could be reshaped and reconfigured to enable the United States to more effectively and more efficiently achieve its objectives across the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.

October 18, 2013

NATO's ballistic missile defense initiative remains a work in progress, but a lack of interceptor and sensor contributions on the part of the European allies is likely to have significant implications for the U.S. Army. In particular, the U.S. Army is likely to face increased manpower demands, materiel requirements, and training needs in order to meet the demand signal created by the NATO ballistic missile defense program.

October 09, 2012

The January 2012 announcement that the United States would reduce the number of Brigade Combat Teams in Europe captured media, popular, and scholarly attention, prompting many to ask: Is the United States turning its back on Europe as it pivots to Asia? Do the Europeans have the wherewithal to defend themselves? Are forward-based U.S. land forces necessary at all? Given the necessity of capable, interoperable coalition partners for the future security threats Washington most expects to encounter, the role of America’s forward military presence in Europe remains as vital as it was at the dawn of the Cold War, but for different reasons. Dr. Deni’s monograph forms a critical datapoint in the ongoing dialogue regarding the future of American Landpower.